why are we here

the idea is to take suo motu control over situations that have a bearing on our lives. 'suomotu' would mean this has come on our own motion. the question is 'was this required', and let's answer it in a strong 'yes'. legislators, public figures, analysts can no longer decide our fate or the way we judge events; we are free, equal, accountable to our own good. here we come to discuss, to decide and to persuade.

from modi-wave to ‘modism’

politics is an unethical job. one may be completely honest towards his office, but political compulsions, more so in a democracy where one fears a defeat in subsequent polls, rarely allow politicians to abide by the virtuous code of conduct. in india, a leader has to manage different quarters with dissimilar demands and yet must make sure that all these conflicting interests are taken care of.

so, even if we disapprove of these facts, the reality would not change- a strictly uncompromising leader still remains a distant dream.

but when it comes to compromises, there are legitimate boundaries that shall never be breached. in the past 4 years, the modi-led bjp government not only breached these boundaries but they treaded so violently into unethical zones that the once seemingly invincible modi now stands vulnerable to electoral defeats. but where did he go so wrong?

politicians in a country like india, where much of the population still faces various socio-economic impediments in everyday life, quite often tend to make a similar mistake. from indira gandhi to mayawati and now narendra modi, all these politicians when they were at the peak of their respective careers, overvalued their stocks. similar to the stock markets where corrections occur after regular intervals to bring back stocks to their legitimate value, politics is no different.

in modi’s case, his party men are leaving no stone unturned in propagating a neo-political ideology that we can term ‘modism’. modism may not comprise of express intolerance against minority groups but since it relies on popular majority support to stay relevant, a silence on atrocities on minorities is an indispensable part of it. for example, the bjp stance on the sabrimala verdict is a clear manifestation of what identity politics can lead to- violation of the principle of rule of law.

and prime minister modi cannot help but accept the state of affairs to ensure continuity of his office, something akin to manmohan singh’s silence on corruption by coalition parties during his second term. what this has led to is the rise of self-seeking elements within the bjp, which is welcoming people of all sorts given that they can command support from the electorate. the call for decriminalization of politics is nowhere to be found.

although, as stated earlier, politics may be an unethical job, one cannot disregard ethics only to hold on to power. in case modi believes he has lost the command over unethical elements within his party and that he can no longer deliver inclusive development, he can and should vacate his office, or at least trigger some sort of political cleansing so that india of 21st century is rid of its long-standing demerits.

else, similar to the fall of maoism and other such political ideologies, modism too would fall, sooner or later, leaving modi as a failed politician in political history of india. what may survive his legacy may be the right-wing extremism that will seen as a threat to country’s stability, just like maoism-inspired left-wing insurgency.